Mr. Starr, I want to thank you for coming today. I appreciate
your testimony. And as I have listened to the questions this
afternoon, and as I have observed the response to your referral and
the response to your investigation over the course of this year and
actually prior to this year, I have been reminded of something a
lawyer said about 2000 years ago giving advice to other lawyers. He
said, and I paraphrase, If you don't have an argument abuse the other
side.

Lawyers today I think are all familiar with advice that -- if the
facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue
the facts; and if the law and the facts are against you, just argue
like the devil. And I think what we are seeing here --

REP. HYDE: Would the gentleman yield?

REP. canady: I'd be happy to.

REP. HYDE: I think the punchline on that is beat up on the
lawyer.

REP. canady: That's a variation on the same theme. And I think
what we are seeing here is a desperate attempt to get away from the
facts of the case against the president. Now, I understand that,
because I find that the facts are particularly compelling. I think
your referral sets forth in great detail a pattern of calculated and
sustained misconduct by the president of the United States. And I
understand why the president's friends would instinctively react to
defend him.

But what is going on in attacking your investigation is not
right. It is not consistent with respect for the rule of law. And I
believe that the attacks that have been launched against you are
without substance. They don't have merit. And even if we could
accept for the purpose of argument that some of these attacks had some
merit, it's obvious that they do not bear in any way on the
reliability or the credibility of the facts of the case against the
president.

Now, if someone could show me evidence of misconduct that
actually went to the credibility of the evidence -- if they could show
me that the evidence was not reliable because of misconduct, and they
could prove the misconduct, I think that would be appropriate for us
to consider.

But we're not hearing that. What we are hearing here is just a
grab bag of -- (inaudible) -- to try to undermine your credibility.
And of course this committee's process has been attacked in the same
way. Any time we come to the point of talking about the facts of the
case with respect to the conduct of William Jefferson Clinton some
people cry "Unfair." I think it's fair to talk about his conduct. I
think that's what we need to focus on. I think that's our
responsibility. And it would be a dereliction of our responsibility
if we allowed ourselves to be diverted from that fundamental task that
has been given to us by the House of Representatives in the resolution
that they adopted.

So that I make by way of a general comment about what's going on.
And I am struck by the concern that has been expressed about due
process. And I think we should all be concerned about due process. I
think that's very important. But I must ask: Where is the concern
for due process in a person who lies under oath in a deposition?
Where is the concern for due process in a person who withholds
evidence and attempts to encourage others to withhold evidence? Where
is the respect for due process in someone who coaches a potential
witness? Where is the concern for due process in the whole course of
conduct which you have outlined in your referral with respect to the
president of the United States? I see stunning lack of respect for
the due process of law in the conduct of the president of the United
States as it is set forth in your referral, and for which we seem to
have no rebuttal -- no significant rebuttal offered. I want to know
if there is going to be a rebuttal offered to these facts. So far we
are not hearing that, and so far in the questions that are being
directed to you. The focus is not on the facts of the case.
Occasionally they'll touch on that. But the focus is on other things
diverted to -- designed to divert attention from the facts of this
case.

Now, I felt compelled to say that, because this is a process that
needs to be on track, and all of us need to focus on the critical
questions here: Did the president of the United States lie under oath
in his deposition? Did the president of the United States lie to the
grand jury? Did the president of the United States obstruct justice?
And did the president of the United States engage in an abuse of his
office in the way that you have outlined?

Now, there is not time for you to respond to that, and that is
not really meant as a question to you; it's meant as an observation on
where this proceeding should be going, and on the attempts that are
being made to divert this proceeding from its proper goal.